[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28460-28466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11710]
[[Page 28460]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2010-0159]
RIN 2125-AF43
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated in regulations, approved by the
FHWA, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control
devices used on all streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open
to public travel. The purpose of this final rule is to revise certain
information relating to target compliance dates for traffic control
devices. This final rule revises Table I-2 of the MUTCD by eliminating
the compliance dates for 46 items (8 that had already expired and 38
that had future compliance dates) and extends and/or revises the dates
for 4 items. The target compliance dates for 8 items that are deemed to
be of critical safety importance will remain in effect. In addition,
this final rule adds a new Option statement exempting existing historic
street name signs within a locally identified historic district from
the Standards and Guidance of Section 2D.43 regarding street sign
color, letter size, and other design features, including
retroreflectivity.
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and in particular its
emphasis on burden-reduction and on retrospective analysis of existing
rules, the changes adopted are intended to reduce the costs and impacts
of compliance dates on State and local highway agencies and to
streamline and simplify the information. The MUTCD, with these changes
incorporated, is being designated as Revision 2 of the 2009 edition of
the MUTCD.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective June 13, 2012. The
incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this regulation
is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of
June 13, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chung Eng, Office of
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-8043; or Mr. William Winne, Office
of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397, Federal Highway Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, the notice of proposed amendment (NPA), and all
comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is
available 24 hours each day, 366 days this year. Please follow the
instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be
downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
http://archives.gov/federal-register and the Government Printing
Office's Web page at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The purpose of this final rule is to revise certain information
relating to target compliance dates for traffic control devices. The
changes adopted are intended to reduce the impacts of compliance dates
on State and local highway agencies and streamline and simplify
information contained in the MUTCD without reducing safety. The FHWA
has the authority to prescribe standards for traffic control devices on
all roads open to public travel pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a),
217, 315, and 402(a).
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
This final rule revises Table I-2 of the MUTCD by eliminating the
compliance dates for 46 items (8 that had already expired and 38 that
had future compliance dates) and extends and/or revises the dates for 4
items. The target compliance dates for 8 items that are deemed to be of
critical safety importance will remain in effect. In addition, this
final rule adds a new Option statement exempting existing historic
street name signs within a locally identified historic district from
the Standards and Guidance of Section 2D.43 regarding street sign
color, letter size, and other design features, including
retroreflectivity.
III. Costs and Benefits
The changes in this rulemaking will not require the expenditure of
additional funds, but rather will provide State and local governments
with the flexibility to allocate scarce financial resources based on
local conditions and the useful service life of its traffic control
devices. Since this rulemaking will benefit State and local governments
by providing additional clarification, guidance and flexibility, it is
anticipated that the economic impacts will be minimal and that costs
and burdens will be reduced. Thus, a full regulatory evaluation was not
conducted.
Revised Table I-2
This final rule amends Table I-2 of the 2009 MUTCD to read as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 MUTCD Section 2009 MUTCD Specific
No.(s) Section title provision Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A.08................ Maintaining Implementation 2 years from
Minimum and continued the effective
Retroreflectiv use of an date of this
ity. assessment or revision of
management the 2009
method that is MUTCD*.
designed to
maintain
regulatory and
warning sign
retroreflectiv
ity at or
above the
established
minimum levels
(see Paragraph
2).
2A.19................ Lateral Offset. Crashworthiness January 17,
of sign 2013 (date
supports on established in
roads with the 2000
posted speed MUTCD).
limit of 50
mph or higher
(see Paragraph
2).
2B.40................ ONE WAY Signs New December 31,
(R6-1, R6-2). requirements 2019.
in the 2009
MUTCD for the
number and
locations of
ONE WAY signs
(see
Paragraphs 4,
9, and 10).
2C.06 through 2C.14.. Horizontal Revised December 31,
Alignment requirements 2019.
Warning Signs. in the 2009
MUTCD
regarding the
use of various
horizontal
alignment
signs (see
Table 2C-5).
[[Page 28461]]
2E.31, 2E.33, and Plaques for New requirement December 31,
2E.36. Left-Hand in the 2009 2014.
Exits. MUTCD to use
E1-5aP and E1-
5bP plaques
for left-hand
exits.
4D.26................ Yellow Change New requirement 5 years from
and Red in the 2009 the effective
Clearance MUTCD that date of this
Intervals. durations of revision of
yellow change the 2009
and red MUTCD, or when
clearance timing
intervals adjustments
shall be are made to
determined the individual
using intersection
engineering and/or
practices (see corridor,
Paragraphs 3 whichever
and 6). occurs first.
4E.06................ Pedestrian New requirement 5 years from
Intervals and in the 2009 the effective
Signal Phases. MUTCD that the date of this
pedestrian revision of
change the 2009
interval shall MUTCD, or when
not extend timing
into the red adjustments
clearance are made to
interval and the individual
shall be intersection
followed by a and/or
buffer corridor,
interval of at whichever
least 3 occurs first.
seconds (see
Paragraph 4).
6D.03 **............. Worker Safety New requirement December 31,
Considerations. in the 2009 2011.
MUTCD that all
workers within
the right-of-
way shall wear
high-
visibility
apparel (see
Paragraphs 4,
6, and 7).
6E.02 **............. High-Visibility New requirement December 31,
Safety Apparel. in the 2009 2011.
MUTCD that all
flaggers
within the
right-of-way
shall wear
high-
visibility
apparel.
7D.04 **............. Uniform of New requirement December 31,
Adult Crossing in the 2009 2011.
Guards. MUTCD for high-
visibility
apparel for
adult crossing
guards.
8B.03, 8B.04......... Grade Crossing Retroreflective December 31,
(Crossbuck) strip on 2019.
Signs and Crossbuck sign
Supports. and support
(see Paragraph
7 in Section
8B.03 and
Paragraphs 15
and 18 in
Section 8B.04).
8B.04................ Crossbuck New requirement December 31,
Assemblies in the 2009 2019.
with YIELD or MUTCD for the
STOP Signs at use of STOP or
Passive Grade YIELD signs
Crossings. with Crossbuck
signs at
passive grade
crossings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Types of signs other than regulatory or warning are to be added to an
agency's management or assessment method as resources allow.
** MUTCD requirement is a result of a legislative mandate.
Note: All compliance dates that were previously published in Table I-2
of the 2009 MUTCD and that do not appear in this revised table have
been eliminated.
Background
One of the purposes of the MUTCD is to provide for the consistent
and uniform application of traffic control devices on streets and
highways open to public travel. These traffic control devices are
designed to promote highway safety and efficiency. As technology
evolves and surroundings change, new provisions for traffic control
devices and their application may be proposed. When new provisions are
adopted in a new edition or revision of the MUTCD, any new or
reconstructed traffic control devices installed after adoption are
required to be in compliance with the new provisions. Existing devices
already in use that do not comply with the new MUTCD provisions are
expected to be upgraded by highway agencies over time to meet the new
provisions, unless the FHWA establishes a target compliance date for
upgrading such devices. If such a target date has been established by
the FHWA through the Federal rulemaking process, agencies are to
upgrade existing noncompliant devices on or before the target
compliance date. Due to the current economic climate, State and local
agencies have expressed concern about the potential costs associated
with replacing noncompliant traffic control devices within the target
compliance dates previously adopted in the MUTCD. In response to those
concerns, the FHWA issued a Request for Comments in the Federal
Register \1\ seeking public input on traffic control device compliance
dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 74128, November 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing and considering the nearly 600 letters submitted by
State and local government highway agencies, national associations,
traffic industry representatives, traffic engineering consultants, and
private citizens, on August 31, 2011, the FHWA published a Notice of
Proposed Amendments (NPA), proposing revisions to the MUTCD at 76 FR
54156. The NPA proposed to revise Table I-2 of the 2009 edition of the
MUTCD to eliminate the compliance dates for 46 items (8 that have
already expired and 38 that have future compliance dates) and to extend
and/or revise the dates for 4 items. In addition, the NPA proposed to
retain the target compliance dates for eight items that were deemed to
be of critical safety importance. Interested persons were invited to
submit comments to FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2010-0159. Based on the
comments received and its own experience, the FHWA is issuing this
final rule and is designating the MUTCD, with these changes
incorporated, as Revision 2 of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD.
The text of Revision 2 of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, with these
final rule changes incorporated, is available for inspection and
copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of
Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text of the 2009 edition of the
MUTCD, with these final rule changes and the changes of Revision 1 also
incorporated, is available on the FHWA's MUTCD Web site at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The 2009 edition with Revisions 1 and 2
incorporated supersedes all previous editions and revisions of the
MUTCD.
Summary of Comments
The FHWA received, reviewed, and analyzed 158 letters submitted to
the docket, which contain nearly 240 different comments on the proposed
changes. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (NCUTCD), the American Public Works Association (APWA), the
National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the American Traffic
Safety Services Association (ATSSA), American Road and Transportation
[[Page 28462]]
Builders Association (ARTBA), State departments of transportation
(DOTs), city and county government agencies, other associations,
transportation consultants, and individual private citizens submitted
comments. The majority of the comments were fully or partially
supportive of the NPA proposal, agreeing with the general intent. The
AASHTO agreed with the NPA, except for two specific compliance dates
that were retained in the NPA (see below for additional details). In
addition to commenting on the compliance date proposal, several local
jurisdictions and individuals submitted comments regarding existing
provisions in Section 2D.43 of the MUTCD that affect ``historic''
street name signs in their communities. A summary of the comments
received and the changes in the MUTCD adopted in this final rule are
included in the following section.
Discussion of Comments on Table I-2 and Adopted Revisions
As noted above, most the comments were fully or partially
supportive of the NPA proposal, and agreed with the general intent of
the NPA. Many commenters had previously taken the opportunity to
comment on the November 30, 2010, request for comments on traffic
control compliance dates published at 75 FR 74128. As a result, the
proposals in the NPA reflected many of the commenters' concerns and
opinions. The following discussion addresses the significant issues
raised by comments in opposition to elements of the NPA published on
August 31, 2011 at 76 FR 54156.
1. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to eliminate 46 of the existing
compliance dates (not including the two associated with sign
retroreflectivity). Six citizens and one association of local
governments in Minnesota opposed these 46 eliminations, on the basis of
reduced uniformity and safety of traffic control devices. The Maryland
State Highway Administration noted that the NPA preamble stated that
FHWA proposed to ``eliminate'' the dates that have already expired for
eight items in Table I-2, but the note at the bottom of the table
stated that these dates were ``deleted'' from the table. The eight
specific compliance dates that have expired were intended to be legally
eliminated (rather than just removed from the table). To clarify this
issue, the FHWA revises the note at the bottom of the table in the
final rule to read, ``All compliance dates that were originally
published in Table I-2 of the 2009 MUTCD that do not appear in this
revised table have been eliminated.'' The FHWA adopts the elimination
of the compliance dates in Table I-2, as proposed in the NPA, for
Sections 2B.03, 2B.09, 2B.10, 2B.11, 2B.13, 2B.26, 2B.55, 2C.04, 2C.13,
2C.20, 2C.30, 2C.38, 2C.40, 2C.41, 2C.42, 2C.46, 2C.49, 2C.50, 2C.61,
2C.63, 2D.43 (two provisions), 2D.44, 2D.45, 2G.01 through 2G.07, 2G.11
through 2G.15, 2H.05 and 2H.06, 2I.09, 2I.10, 2J.05, 2N.03, 3B.04 and
3B.05, 3B.18, 4D.01, 4D.31, 4E.07, 5C.05, 7B.11, 7B.12, 7B.16, 8B.19
and 8C.02 through 8C.05, 8C.09, 8C.12, and 9B.18.
The elimination of a compliance date for a given Standard contained
in the MUTCD does not eliminate the regulatory requirement to comply
with that Standard. The Standard itself remains in the MUTCD and
applies to any new installations, but the compliance date for replacing
noncompliant devices that exist in the field is eliminated. To further
clarify, any new installation of an existing noncompliant device (such
as moving a noncompliant device to another location) would also have to
comply with the Standard upon installation
2. The FHWA proposed to extend the compliance date by approximately
2 years for the provision in Section 2A.08 that requires agencies to
implement an assessment or management method designed to maintain sign
retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels. As part
of this proposal, the FHWA proposed to limit this particular compliance
date to apply only to regulatory and warning signs. This compliance
date does not require replacement of any signs by a particular date.
Rather, it requires highway agencies to implement an assessment or
management method for maintaining sign retroreflectivity, in accordance
with section 406 of the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-388; October 6, 1992),
by the compliance date. Safety advocacy organizations, the ARTBA, one
State DOT, and some industry representatives generally disagreed with
the proposal. The ATSSA and some State DOTs agreed with the extension
for implementing an assessment/management method, but requested that
guide signs not be excluded. However, many agencies stated that
including guide signs in the assessment method would limit funds that
could be used for other projects. The FHWA disagrees with including
guide signs at this time because regulatory and warning signs
constitute the highest priority for assessing retroreflectivity of
existing signs. The FHWA, therefore, adopts the revisions as proposed
in the final rule. The additional cost of including guide signs would
increase the economic burden on agencies, whose funds are limited due
to the current economic climate. The revisions to the compliance date
and its applicability will provide relief and enable agencies to
determine when their resources will allow them to add signs, other than
regulatory and warning signs, to their assessment or management method.
Several commenters noted the confusion and potential for
misinterpretation introduced by limiting the compliance date to
regulatory and warning signs. The FHWA reiterates that the language in
Section 2A.08 still requires agencies to establish a method for all
types of signs, but understands that limiting the compliance date to
regulatory and warning signs could lead some agencies to mistakenly
think that guide signs would never be required to be included in an
agency's method. In addition, because the MUTCD requirement is for a
method rather than a device, it is unclear how agencies would interpret
the application of ``systematic upgrading'' (applicable to MUTCD
requirements that have no specific compliance date) in the case of
adding guide signs to the agency's management or assessment method. The
FHWA adds a footnote to Table I-2 to clarify that other types of signs
are to be added to an agency's management or assessment method as
resources allow. The FHWA believes that adding this footnote in the
final rule, rather than being silent on the issue, will provide
clarity. The FHWA adopts the extension of the compliance date from
January 22, 2012, to 2 years after this final rule and adds a footnote
as discussed above.
In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to eliminate the
compliance dates for replacement of signs found not to meet the minimum
retroreflectivity standards. The ATSSA, the ARTBA, other safety
advocates, industry representatives, some States and cities, and
several citizens disagreed with eliminating the January 22, 2015, and
January 22, 2018, compliance dates and suggested that the dates instead
be extended to 2018 and 2021, respectively. Even without a specific
date, agencies will still need to replace any sign they identify as not
meeting the established minimum retroreflectivity levels. Their
schedules replacing the signs, however, would be based on resources and
relative priorities, rather than specific compliance dates. As a
result, the FHWA eliminates these compliance dates in the final rule.
3. The FHWA proposed to extend the compliance dates for signal
timing adjustments associated with vehicular
[[Page 28463]]
yellow and red clearance intervals in Section 4D.26 and pedestrian
clearance intervals in Section 4E.06 from December 31, 2014, to 5 years
after this final rule. The National Association of City Transportation
Officials requested a further extension to 10 years after the final
rule and Pennsylvania DOT suggested eliminating this date instead of
extending it. The FHWA disagrees with extending the compliance date
even further into the future or eliminating it, as the extension that
was proposed in the NPA achieves a reasonable balance between the need
for these critical safety retiming efforts and resource constraints. As
mentioned in the NPA, the original compliance date of December 31, 2014
published for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD was based on what FHWA
believed to be the typical signal retiming frequency of about 5 years.
This new proposed compliance date provides agencies with more than 2
additional years to implement the new requirements of Sections 4D.26
and 4E.06 at any locations that have not already been made compliant
under a previous intersection or corridor retiming. Thus, the FHWA
believes that it is reasonable for agencies to retime those signals by
2017 that have not already been made compliant under a previous
intersection or corridor retiming. The FHWA adopts the extension of the
compliance dates for Sections 4D.26 and 4E.06 to 5 years after this
final rule, or when timing adjustments are made to the individual
intersections and/or corridor, whichever occurs first, as proposed in
the NPA.
4. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise and extend the
compliance dates in Sections 8B.03 and 8B.04 related to requiring
retroreflective strips on the back of Crossbuck signs and on the front
and back of supports for Crossbuck signs at passive railroad grade
crossings (those crossings that do not have gates and/or flashing
lights activated upon approach of a train). As discussed in the NPA,
the FHWA proposed to extend this compliance date to December 31, 2019,
which would coincide with the date for adding YIELD or STOP signs with
Crossbuck signs at passive grade crossings so that railroad companies
and highway agencies can avoid unnecessary expense and achieve greater
economies of sending sign crews to crossings only once rather than
twice. The FHWA also proposed to extend the compliance date to clarify
that the requirements for retroreflective strips are in Section 8B.04
as well as Section 8B.03 and to clarify that the compliance date was
also intended to apply to the retroreflective strip on the backs of the
Crossbuck signs. Two State DOTs and one consultant opposed this
extension, suggesting instead that the dates be eliminated. Two
commenters questioned the effectiveness of the devices but did not
provide supporting evidence. As a result, the FHWA could not evaluate
the commenters' effectiveness concerns. As to the suggestion of
eliminating the compliance date entirely, the FHWA disagrees with those
commenters because the extension proposed in the NPA provides an
additional 9 years beyond the original 10-year compliance period
established for this requirement in the 2000 edition of the MUTCD,
while achieving the practical benefit of allowing agencies and
companies to apply the retroreflective strips at the same time that
they add YIELD or STOP signs at those same crossings. The FHWA adopts
the revision and extension of this compliance date to December 31,
2019, as proposed in the NPA.
5. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to retain the existing target
compliance dates for eight items that it deemed to be of critical
safety importance, based on existing evidence, FHWA's subject matter
expertise, and FHWA's experience in traffic control device matters. As
stated in the NPA, final rules establishing compliance dates for each
of the eight items clearly identified the safety justification for the
compliance dates established. As a general comment, the NCUTCD, the
NACE, three State DOTs, two cities, and two State associations of
engineers requested that all retained compliance dates be justified by
a benefit/cost analysis in accordance with Executive Order 13563. The
FHWA disagrees that such an analysis is necessary because the
compliance dates are already in the MUTCD and were put in place prior
to the issuance of the Executive Order. This rulemaking is not
establishing new, more burdensome dates for these items and is actually
relieving burdens associated with many existing compliance dates. The
following paragraphs describe the concerns that commenters expressed
specifically related to the target compliance dates retained by the
FHWA.
The FHWA proposed to retain the January 17, 2013, target compliance
date for provisions in Section 2A.19 requiring crashworthiness of
existing sign supports on roads with posted speed limits of 50 miles
per hour (mph) or higher. This compliance date was established in the
2003 edition of the MUTCD. The AASHTO, the NCUTCD, the NACE, four State
DOTs, a city, and a state association of engineers requested extension
of the January 17, 2013, compliance date to 2019, or the end of the
useful life of the sign supports (with no specific compliance date),
rather than retaining the existing compliance date. The commenters did
not provide supporting evidence for their position. The FHWA disagrees
with eliminating or extending the compliance date because eliminating
fixed-object hazards on high-speed roads remains a critical safety need
due to the potential for death or severe injury that can result from
high-speed, run-off-the-road crashes when non-crashworthy sign supports
are struck. The following data on fatal crashes on roads with speed
limits of 50 mph or higher, where a sign support was the ``most harmful
event,'' was obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Most harmful event -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Sign Post............... 47 56 54 71 53
Overhead Sign Support........... 9 9 12 17 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fatalities............ 56 65 66 88 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 5-year period from 2005 to 2009, on average each year, 68
fatalities occurred that can be attributed to collisions with sign
supports. The most recent year where full data is available is 2009.
The data does not differentiate between crashworthy and non-crashworthy
supports. However, based on this data, if the compliance date was
[[Page 28464]]
extended by 6 years, about 400 potential fatalities might occur during
that time. Collisions with sign supports are the cause of about 15
percent of the total fatalities involving poles of any sort.
Nevertheless, they represent a significant problem on high-speed roads.
To address this problem, in late 2000, the MUTCD addressed this issue
by adding a requirement for a 10-year compliance date (2013), which was
formally adopted in 2003. By 2013, agencies will have had 12 years to
comply. The FHWA adopts the retention of the existing January 17, 2013,
compliance date for this item, as proposed in the NPA.
For provisions in Section 2B.40 that require agencies to install
additional ONE WAY signs at certain types of intersections, the FHWA
proposed retaining the target compliance date of December 31, 2019, as
established in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. Two State DOTs and a
county disagreed with retaining the existing compliance date and asked
that the date be eliminated instead. The FHWA adopts the retention of
the existing compliance date for this item, as proposed in the NPA,
because of the safety issues associated with wrong-way travel on
divided highways (the subject of a current National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) investigation), research on the needs of older
drivers, and the significant safety benefits to road users that the
addition of such signs may provide.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.E(4),
I.K(2), and I.K(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to retain the December 31, 2019,
target compliance date for the provisions in Sections 2C.06 through
2C.14 that require the use of various horizontal alignment warning
signs and determinations of advisory speed values, adopted in the 2009
edition of the MUTCD. The AASHTO, the NCUTCD, the NACE, eight State
DOTs, one city, a State association of engineers, and a consultant
requested postponing the existing compliance date until National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 03-106 (``Traffic
Control Device Guidelines for Curves'') confirms or disproves the costs
and benefits of these warning signs, rather than retaining the date.
The FHWA disagrees with extending the date because the NCHRP research
is due to be completed by the end of 2015, which is 4 years before the
compliance date. Four years allows sufficient time for revision of the
2019 date, if necessary. As stated in the NPA, the FHWA established the
10-year compliance date due to the safety issues associated with run-
off-the-road crashes at horizontal curves and the disproportionate
number of fatalities at horizontal curves on the Nation's highways. The
FHWA adopts the retention of the existing compliance date for this
item, as proposed in the NPA.
One State DOT disagreed with the FHWA's proposal in the NPA to
retain the December 31, 2014, compliance date associated with requiring
the use of LEFT EXIT plaques on guide signs for left exits established
in Sections 2E.31, 2E.33, and 2E.36 of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD.
The State DOT suggested eliminating, rather than retaining, the
compliance date. The FHWA disagrees, because the 5-year target
compliance date was established to address a recommendation of the NTSB
arising from a significant safety concern with left-hand exits. The
NTSB made a specific recommendation that the implementation of the LEFT
plaque at left-hand exits be accelerated with a 5-year compliance date
due to the fact that left-hand exits, though relatively rare, continue
to violate driver expectancy at freeway and expressway locations. The
lack of clear notice of a left-hand exit was cited as a contributing
factor in a 2007 fatal crash of a motorcoach that inadvertently
departed the freeway lanes at a left-hand exit. The FHWA adopts the
retention of the December 31, 2014, compliance date in the final rule.
As stated in the NPA, the installation of these plaques generally does
not require replacement of the existing sign or sign support and this
change affects relatively few existing locations throughout the
country.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts the retention of the
existing December 31, 2011, target compliance date associated with the
requirements in Sections 6D.03, 6E.02, and 7D.04 that all workers,
including flaggers and school crossing guards must wear high-visibility
apparel within the right-of-way of all highways, not just Federal-aid
highways. Although a consultant suggested that the compliance date for
high-visibility apparel should be eliminated because the compliance
date will have expired by the time the final rule becomes effective,
the FHWA retains the existing compliance date. Due to safety concerns
and minimal costs, the FHWA does not believe agencies that have not yet
complied should be relieved from compliance at the earliest possible
time.
Finally, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts the retention of
the existing December 31, 2019, target compliance date for the
provisions in Section 8B.04 that require the use of either a YIELD or
STOP sign with the Crossbuck sign at all passive grade crossings. Two
State DOTs and a consultant disagreed with retaining the existing
compliance date, suggesting that the date be eliminated. One of these
commenters stated that this signing was only minimally effective and
that compliance by the existing date was too costly but did not provide
any evidence for either of these statements. The FHWA disagrees,
because the 10-year compliance period provides adequate time to install
these signs and because research has found the signs are needed to
improve grade crossing safety.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See NCHRP Report 470: Traffic-Control Devices for Passive
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Comments on Section 2D.43 and Adopted Revisions
Comments on the provisions of Section 2D.43 regarding Street Name
signs were submitted to the docket by officials and citizens of the
Township of Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, the Town of Brookline,
Massachusetts, citizens of Saugerties and Forest Hills, New York, and
the organization Historic New England. The comments stated that the
communities have ``historic'' Street Name signs that do not meet the
Standards and Guidance of Section 2D.43 regarding color, letter size,
and other design features, including retroreflectivity. These
communities asked for an exemption from the MUTCD so that they can
retain their historic Street Name signs without fear of noncompliance
with the MUTCD. These docket comments are similar to other concerns
raised previously to the FHWA by two other communities (Fox Point,
Wisconsin, and Waverly, Pennsylvania). The FHWA understands the desire
of some communities to retain truly historic Street Name signs that are
a key component of maintaining the historic character and environment
of a particular district.
The FHWA agrees to provide flexibility for communities with
historic Street Name signs that do not meet the provisions of the
MUTCD, where the community deems the historic Street Name signs to meet
the need for effective navigational information to road users. However,
the FHWA believes that such flexibility is appropriate only in specific
circumstances and lower risk situations. The Code of Federal
Regulations, in 36 CFR part 60, governs the listing on the
[[Page 28465]]
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) of historic districts and
structures such as Street Name signs. Specifically, 36 CFR 60.4
provides criteria for evaluating a district to be identified as a
historic district and for evaluating a system of structures, such as
Street Name signs, to be identified as historic structures.
Therefore, the FHWA adds a new OPTION paragraph at the end of
Section 2D.43 stating, ``On lower speed roadways, historic street name
signs within locally identified historic districts that are consistent
with the criteria contained in 36 CFR 60.4 for such structures and
districts may be used without complying with the provisions of
Paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 through 14, and 18 through 20 of this
section.''
The FHWA believes that the vast majority of what is expected to be
a fairly small number of historic Street Name signs meeting the
criteria will be on local roads with speed limits of 25 mph or less. If
a community decides to use the new OPTION to retain existing historic
Street Name signs within a historic district, the FHWA believes it is
important for the community to ensure that the historic Street Name
signs provide at least some degree of utility as navigational devices
for road users. External illumination of the Street Name signs should
be considered for this purpose. It is also important to note that the
OPTION applies only to historic Street Name signs in historic districts
meeting the eligibility criteria of 36 CFR 60.4 and does not apply to
other types of traffic signs or devices, nor to locations outside of
historic districts.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action constitutes a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and
within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to the
significant public interest in issues surrounding the MUTCD. This
action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to improve
regulation. In particular, this action is consistent with, and can be
seen as directly responsive to, the requirements of Executive Order
13563, and in particular its requirement for retrospective analysis of
existing rules (section 6), with an emphasis on streamlining its
regulations. This approach is also consistent with Presidential
Memorandum, Administrative Flexibility, which calls for reducing
burdens and promoting flexibility for State and local governments.
The changes in the MUTCD will reduce burdens on State and local
government in the application of traffic control devices. They will
provide additional clarification, guidance, and flexibility to such
governments. The uniform application of traffic control devices will
greatly improve roadway safety and traffic operations efficiency. The
standards, guidance, options, and support are also used to create
uniformity and to enhance safety and mobility. The changes in this
rulemaking will not require the expenditure of additional funds, but
rather will provide State and local governments with the flexibility to
allocate scarce financial resources based on local conditions and the
useful service life of its traffic control devices. It is anticipated
that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal and indeed
costs and burdens will be reduced, not increased; therefore, a full
regulatory evaluation is not required.
As noted, this action streamlines existing significant regulation
to reduce burden and promote the flexibilities of State and local
governments under Executive Order 13563. In response to concerns about
the potential impact of previously adopted MUTCD compliance dates on
State and local governments in the current economic climate, the FHWA
published a Request for Comments on traffic control device compliance
dates. The FHWA asked for responses to a series of seven questions
about compliance dates, their benefits and potential economic impacts,
especially economic hardships to State and local governments that might
result from specific target compliance dates for upgrading certain non-
compliant existing devices. The responses received from that notice
were considered in the development of this final rule. The FHWA
anticipates that this rulemaking will reduce the impacts of compliance
dates on State and local highway agencies and will streamline and
simplify information contained in the MUTCD without reducing safety.
The FHWA has retained compliance dates where it is of critical safety
importance.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects these changes on
small entities. I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this
rule will reduce burdens and provide clarification and additional
flexibility, and will not require an expenditure of funds.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999. This
action will increase flexibility for State and local governments. The
FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rulemaking will not
preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability
to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The MUTCD is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. These proposed
amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of Transportation's
authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to promulgate uniform
guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of the highway. The
overriding safety benefits of the uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD
are shared by all of the State and local governments. In general, this
rule will increase flexibility for States and local governments. To the
extent that these amendments override any existing State requirements
regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the interest of
national uniformity.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48,
March 22, 1995). On the contrary, the rule provides additional
guidance, flexibility, and clarification and would not require an
expenditure of funds. This action will not result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $140.8 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C.
1532).
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and
will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
[[Page 28466]]
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that this is not a
significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive
Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that
this action does not contain a collection of information requirement
for the purposes of the PRA.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
to eliminate ambiguity, and to reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This is not an economically significant action and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This action would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that it will not have any effect on the quality of the
environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23
CFR 771.117(c)(20).
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655
Design standards, Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Issued on: May 9, 2012.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, subpart F as follows:
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315 and
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
2. Revise Sec. 655.601 to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose.
To prescribe the policies and procedures of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) to obtain basic uniformity of traffic control
devices on all streets and highways in accordance with the following
references that are approved by the FHWA for application on Federal-aid
projects:
(a) MUTCD.
(b) AASHTO Guide to Metric Conversion.
(c) AASHTO Traffic Engineering Metric Conversion Factors.
(d) The standards required in this section are incorporated by
reference into this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this
section, the FHWA must publish notice of change in the Federal Register
and the material must be available to the public. All approved material
is available for inspection at the Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Transportation Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-8043 and is available from the sources
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA call (202) 741-6030, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/index.html.
(1) AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Suite 249, 444 North Capitol Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20001
(i) AASHTO Guide to Metric Conversion, 1993;
(ii) AASHTO, Traffic Engineering Metric Conversion Factors, 1993--
Addendum to the Guide to Metric Conversion, October 1993.
(2) FHWA, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-1993, also available at
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
(i) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), 2009 Edition, including Revisions No. 1 and No. 2,
FHWA, dated May 2012.
(ii) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2012-11710 Filed 5-10-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P